To wonder why the mainstream media is not reporting the massive anti-regime protests in Iran?

[supernaturalmilkshake]

There are currently massive anti-Islamic regime protests all over Iran by civilians, many of them chanting for the return of the Shah.

These protestors are incredibly brave, many of them have been killed, shot or taken away by the regime police.

The protests, some of them hundreds of thousands strong, all over Iran have been widely reported and documented by exiled Iranians on places like Twitter/X but the mainstream news has been strangely silent, especially the BBC that would normally have non-stop, headline reporting if this was about happening anywhere else.

AIBU to hope the regime falls and that the Iranians finally taste freedom after 47 years (and that the BBC should be reporting on this)?

Iran is saying it is being orchestrated by Israel and the US so that sort of agrees with that.

Media coverage about world events is not controlled by algorithms.

The algorithms affect how quickly certain stories spread, is what I think you meant?

Is Buddhism actively seeking to convert nowadays? Just had a quick google, that’s what I’ve found:

In recent statements, including those leading into 2026, the 14th Dalai Lama has consistently discouraged active conversion. He famously advised, "Do not try to use what you learn from Buddhism to be a Buddhist; use it to be a better whatever-you-already-are"

Agrees with what, that cash flow to Hamas and Hezbollah will be cut? That would be a good thing surely.

According to wiki, Buddhism is seen as a missionary religion, whereas Judaism is not, for example. I think what the DL meant will depend on the context. (I am not saying I particularly want to know the answer though!)

That's true. Sorry to make you scroll back but i mentioned it's not a simple situation.

No, agrees that if a revolution were successful it would be to the benefit of Israel and the US.

Of course they’d say that.
No word about it possibly also benefitting the people in Iran?

Or maybe the public have become entirely sick and tired of the endless decades of Middle Eastern conflict on the news, and are fed up to the back teeth of it.

Wiki also says this in its article on proselytism:

Buddhism has no accepted or strong proselytism tradition, with the Buddha teaching his followers to respect other religions and the clergy. Emperor Ashoka, however, sent imperial missionaries to various kingdoms and sent his son and daughter as missionaries to Sri Lanka following his conversion to Buddhism. Aggressive proselytising is discouraged in the major Buddhist schools and Buddhists do not engage in the practice of proselytisation.

Whether or not that’s the case, it didn’t stop the media reporting extensively on Gaza.

Agreed. The current regime is also funding terrorist groups in Yemen (causing widespread suffering and affecting global trade), Iraq (affecting its stability), Syria (frequent flare-ups of violence against minority groups and arms trafficking to Hezbollah in Lebanon).

But even if people don't care about Iranians or anyone else in the Middle East, Iran is a significant oil exporter (3-4% of global supply) and between this and Venezuela, there is likely to be an impact on oil prices, which is part of the reason the cost of living has increased and industries like manufacturing are struggling in the UK.

The fall of the IRGC could materially impact lives in the UK in a way I don't think the ICE shooting does.

Re the sword - I was thinking more of older history- though of course Nasrids, many Mughals etc did not force conversion (which the Quran seems to forbid) I agree re extremists recently

I read Ryszard Kapuscinski's book on the fall of the previous Shah in 1979 recently..I already knew a bit about him, but not the full extent of the brutality of the secret police etc

This Pahlavi now may be different though

It is fair to say that this violent forced conversion stuff is mainly from Salafi/Wahhabi changes in the 18th century. The Quran does say there should be 'no compulsion in religion' and that conversion should not be forced.

As I've said, the Ottomans, Nasrids, Mughal Muslim empires did not force non Muslims to convert. The Ottomans went crazily horrible towards the end but that was surprisingly more driven by the secular nationalist Ataturk, who allowed the genocide of Christian Greeks & Armenians. The rise of Arab nationalism drove the persecution of Mizrahi Jews in the 20th century who had lived in peace in Iraq etc for centuries. BTW Samantha Ellis' memoir of being Iraqi Jewish, Chopping Onions On My Heart, is very good on this. Also Violette Shamash' memoir Memories of Eden.

Christians conquistadores etc enslaved and mistreated Indians who wouldn't convert, that doesn't mean Jesus asks for that. The Old Testament is a bit different towards non believers but it's hard to argue it calls for spreading religion by the sword en masse either.

Why do we keep getting threads like this saying the mainstream media aren't reporting things when they very clearly are!

It is so annoying. Look at the actual websites and stop posting clickbait.

Iran was the top story on the Times website this morning - and was also clearly mentioned on the BBC and Guardian (can't remember if at top or not).

(and I know this was posted on Thursday but it was definitely on all three websites then, too, but maybe not top billing, given the whole Greenland thing and of course the scumbag ICE murder).

I noticed the BBC started reporting seriously on the Iranian freedom protests very late in the day, only once critical momentum had been reached and they could no longer them or consign them to a small space, halfway down the news site.

Anyway, lets hope the wonderful and brave Iranian/Persian people get their freedom soon and that the disgusting, genocidal regime is consigned to the dustbin of history.

I don't think any Muslim country ranks as high on women's rights as Western countries.

Muslim countries in Central Asia as well as Indonesia, North African Tunisia & Morocco, & European Albania & Kosovo do rank a lot better than Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc

Come on,of course the Guardian is left wing.. The Observer too. The Independent & the I on balance also lean left.

Christianity is very definitely a missionary religion(Great Commission etc). Jesus did not say to do it by force though unfortunately that's how it was done sometimes historically.

Have right wing papers like The Telegraph & The Times been reporting these facets?

That's true. In practice though, Buddhism did spread quite well from India to China, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Tibet etc. It tended to blend with local traditions like Shintoism and Taoism rather than replace them, though.

I do think that is part of it, sadly. Similar to the Sudan conflict

Good post, plus the hostile state activities we are subject to.

I need to check this but Grok claims that the Independent, the Observer, & the Economist all covered the protests from when they started in December.

If so, this doesn't fit with the left wing legacy media not covering due to being too woke.

Is it true that these left wing outlets covered it the way Grok says?

The Independent (often seen as center-left but mainstream): They jumped on it immediately. Articles appeared as early as December 29, 2025 (e.g., on traders/shopkeepers protesting the currency plunge and strikes), December 30 (major protests and government seeking dialogue), and continued daily into January 2026 with timelines, death toll updates, and analysis. They explicitly noted the start date as December 28 in multiple pieces, including timelines and live updates.
The Observer (Sunday sister paper to The Guardian, left-leaning): Coverage ties into The Guardian's timeline, with reports emerging by December 30-31, 2025 (e.g., president calling for talks on demands from currency/living standards decline). The Guardian itself published on December 30 (widespread dissent) and December 31 ("We want the mullahs gone" on biggest protests since 2022), framing the economic roots and rapid spread.
The Economist (centrist/liberal, highly respected globally): They covered developments in their "world in brief" sections and features starting early January 2026, but referenced the December 28 trigger in pieces like January 2 (regime looking rattled amid protests and external threats) and later analyses of escalation. While not always daily front-page news, their in-depth takes acknowledged the protests from the initial economic spark.

The Financial Times, The Telegraph & The Times all appear to have covered it from early on too. This doesn't fit with legacy media not covering it.

If the real issue is with the BBC, it's not accurate to criticise the coverage from all legacy media or left wing media.

Not as far as I can see, at least not recently. It's possible to piece together from many months of articles (possibly years) but if someone asked me to send them an article which clearly explains why the collapse of the regime matters to the average person in the UK, I don't think I'd have anything to share (possibly some youtube videos but not from the MSM).

Which is a shame because lots more people might engage with the news if it covered topics in a way that felt less like propaganda (from all different perspectives) and instead helped them actually understand the issues without assuming loads of prior knowledge about the economic/political/geographic/social context (I would certainly appreciate it). The BBC used to be good at this.